THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => CHATTER => Topic started by: Tom on 09 Aug 2008, 23:50
-
...is a term used to describe a person's tendency/willingness to deceive and manipulate others for personal gain. Richard Christie and Florence L. Geis developed a test for measuring a person's level of Machiavellianism in the 1960s which eventually morphed into what is known as the MACH-IV test. It is a twenty-statement personality survey that is now the standard self-assessment tool of Machiavellianism. Never put you're faith in anything but i took an online version of this and sored 91. Does that make me a bad person? If so I might care but it depends.
LINKY-LINK-LINK (http://www.salon.com/books/it/1999/09/13/machtest/)
-
45. Low Mach. Unsurprising.
-
I got a 75. I figured it wouldn't be quite that high, but I'm not all that surprised.
-
but.... but you're Jesus, aren't you?
-
59. I found it hard to choose anything other than three for a lot of those questions. There's a whole lot of 'it depends' so I'm not sure how a great a test it is. Unless that's what you're after in tests like these. I've never read up on it.
(my eve character scored 86)
-
Uh... yes. Yes I am. Nothing to be worried about here. Move along now.
To be honest, my resemblance to Jesus begins and ends with appearance. I can be quite the manipulative little fuck should the opportunity arise.
-
78.
BAHAHAHA
-
Hm, 62. A bit higher than I expected, but oh well...
-
I got a 75. I figured it wouldn't be quite that high, but I'm not all that surprised.
Ditto. I probably would have gotten lower if I left ones neutral that I debated about for a bit before choosing a number.
-
High Mach 64. I was actually hoping higher.
-
76 here, but there were a few questions I was iffy over
-
but.... but you're Jesus, aren't you?
He managed to convince 2 billion people to believe in him, a fair bit of machiavellianism was probably involved...
EDIT
I got 82...
-
Personally I think that test is a little unfair, in that it is clearly biased toward people being Machiavellian. Like, just because I believe most people at the top have skeletons in their closet doesn't mean I'm being Machiavellian, it just means I don't aspire to be a politician.
ADDITION: I'm not sure what this question has to do with how Machiavellian you are, and I'm even more confused by how your answer relates to your score:
19) People suffering from incurable diseases should have the choice of being put painlessly to death.
Agreeing with that statement makes you more Machiavellian. huh?
-
I got a 45.
-
83.
Tee hee.
-
I scored a 37. This may come as a surprise to most you though.
-
I scored a sixty, mostly out of apathy I think.
-
38, although I dislike how the questions were worded, like Joe.
-
I was on the higher end with 70. I found there were very few instances when I graded about a 3 most were 1-3. Then again the questions werent as blatant as I woulda thought.
-
I got a 56, so just about in the middle. Does that make me semi-Machiavellian? I don't really understand the rating system here I guess.
-
61. Halfway through I got a bit cynical.
-
Man Machiavelli gets a bad rap. Sure he was a teacher of wickedness, but as a political scientiest, this is kinda his job.
-
89...But I'm not that manipulative.
-
The most amusing thing about the fact that my score of 92 is currently leading is that I was going to do second run-through whereby I deliberately gave Machiavellian responses. Then my honest dry-run scored 92 and I didn't have to bother duking the results.
-
Personally I think that test is a little unfair, in that it is clearly biased toward people being Machiavellian. Like, just because I believe most people at the top have skeletons in their closet doesn't mean I'm being Machiavellian, it just means I don't aspire to be a politician.
Likewise, 'It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there' can be agreed with without implying a personal tendency for cutting corners.
-
The thing is about Machiavelli is that he was a realist, and it's very hard to argue against the things he said even if you are morally opposed to them. A lot of the questions on the test basically determined how Machiavellian your view of the world is rather than how Machiavellian your actions are.
For example, how can you possibly "strongly agree" with the statement that "Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean, moral lives"? Just because you can see that many of the people who are wealthy and powerful in the world are obviously immoral and selfish doesn't mean that you yourself condone it. In fact, you can strongly disagree with that statement but also strongly agree that "it is better to be humble and honest than to be important and dishonest."
The questions should have either focused on how Machiavellian you yourself are in your morals, values, and actions; or just tested you on whether you have a Machiavellian philosophy on human nature & society. It was a weird mix of the two and it didn't really work out too well.
I scored a 47, by the way.
-
You know, I know some mighty influential people. *Mighty* influential. People have tried to flatter them to get ahead, and it did not work out well for them.
Basically, Machiavellianism has absolutely no value in the real world, in my eyes. Maybe back then it was easier to flatter your way into promotions because royalty was inbred to an absurd degree.
My score was 43.
-
On a localised scale (say that of the business world), I think there is definitely something to be said for the key aspects of Machiavellian theory.
I've definitely used it in all of my past jobs and I use it today. It's a survival trait in this eternally bureaucratic world.
-
i scored a 53.
the test says i'm supposed to be dependent and submissive but i'm pretty sure most on my answers were instead influenced by the fact that i've just been in school studying people and the criminal justice system and psychology and all that dang stuff for a really long time. for example, i gave a 1 to the question "the biggest difference between most criminals and other people is that the criminals are stupid enough to get caught" because it just isn't true, period. but most people haven't studied enough crime stats to know that.
also like joe mentioned the questions were poorly worded and way too general. my definition of being good and kind is basically not being a complete fucking psychopath since i'm sure everybody has done at least one selfless thing in their lives. obviously other people will hold a different definition.
-
Basically, Machiavellianism has absolutely no value in the real world, in my eyes. Maybe back then it was easier to flatter your way into promotions because royalty was inbred to an absurd degree.
My score was 43.
You still see this to a ridiculous degree, as tommy pointed out. Think no-bid contracts and that huge company with a name beginnning with E
-
Nepotism is here to stay. It's eternally useful to be friendly with those who can get you ahead. I'm certain Machiavelli was operating under the assumption that you have other assets that will make people take notice of you beyond just employing empty flattering. There's a huge difference between being a simpering, vacuous toady and assuring someone that you'll be quite happy to scratch their back if they'll do the same for you. Whether you're honest when making such overtures is almost beside the point.
I scored a 61, which hits me as fair, since I'm cynical enough to agree with how he views the world at times but idealistic enough to lend money to an unreliable friend despite knowing that I'll likely never get it back.
-
Mine was 51. I'm going to go have vanilla sex with my plain, slightly sumbissive wife now.
-
man i just started taking this test and already i hate it. maybe I am stupid but I do not understand how to answer some of the questions. also, i predict i will get below a 50. we shall see if this holds up.
edit: so my final score is a 43. i personally think maceavelli was a giant dick, so this does not suprise me. and i still think some of those questions were worded just terribly.
-
Likewise, 'It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there' can be agreed with without implying a personal tendency for cutting corners.
Yeah that was another silly one. But really, we could criticize most of the questions in exactly the same way. As moo pointed out, the questions ought to be direct personal statements like "I usually cut corners to get ahead."
-
71. My most recent D&D character surprisingly scored only 78; I was expecting him to score higher, although I guess it makes sense because he's not really manipulative so much as a blunt and cynical asshole.
-
44
-
36 and I agree that the questions are interestingly worded.
-
71. My most recent D&D character surprisingly scored only 78; I was expecting him to score higher, although I guess it makes sense because he's not really manipulative so much as a blunt and cynical asshole.
NERD
-
57, which qualifies as a "Low Mach", although it must be on the higher end of that category, looking at everyone else's scores.
-
but.... but you're Jesus, aren't you?
He managed to convince 2 billion people to believe in him, a fair bit of machiavellianism was probably involved...
I was actually expecting more from him.
-
43. Hm.
-
64 which is higher than I was expecting, but strangely lower than I wanted. I want to be a mad, bad, dangerous to know Machiavellian motherfucker.
-
I thought you wanted to be Jimmy McNulty?
-
I can be anything you want me to be Harry. Purr.
-
I thought you wanted to be Jimmy McNulty?
whee can't wait for season 5 to hit dvd
-
'What the fuck did I do?'
-
whee can't wait for season 5 to hit dvd
http://www.amazon.com/Wire-Complete-Fifth-Season/dp/B00123BY6S/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1218428924&sr=1-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Wire-Complete-Fifth-Season/dp/B00123BY6S/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1218428924&sr=1-1)
Your order has shipped
FUCK YES.
-
65
Interesting in theory. A longer test with questions that are better thought out might be nice.
-
I can't help but think this test is some kind of devious scheme to analyze people in order to discover and then exploit their personal weaknesses.
-
That was actually the point of this thread.
-
Telling people that wouldn't suit my purposes.
-
My most recent D&D character surprisingly scored only 78; I was expecting him to score higher, although I guess it makes sense because he's not really manipulative so much as a blunt and cynical asshole.
I'd do one for my V:TM character, but I think the results will depend on how far down his humanity level has gone and how long it's been since he fed.
-
58.
I don't mind Machiavellianism. It's a half-right, half-wrong sort of thing with me. I believe that most people are on the whole decent members of society, but I also believe that it's easy to manipulate them if you know what they want.
-
67.... shit guys if i wanna be a lawyer i better start boosting that score upwards a little
-
I got 65. But I don't usually choose to go with the "extremes" ---strongly disagreeing or strongly agreeing. I tend to just agree or disagree. I try not to "sit on the fence" though too...
-
76. Stupidly worded questions, for sure. I think it's not too far off, though.
-
I got a 72. I answered a couple of questions neutrally
In my nerdom, and from reading this thread, my RP character got an 81, and his villainous older self got a 95.
-
Eh. 60.
Though I must say The Prince was a weird book.
-
44.
I guess that means I am sort of an alright person?
-
It means you might be interested in this great investment opportunity I have to tell you about.
-
Yeah, that test is bullshit. Would be nice if someone would make one that didn't suck. For example, I know my score is going to go up for saying that honesty isn't the best policy in all cases, and strongly disagreeing with there being no excuse for lying, but really, there are. Think about it, Germany 1942, police come knocking at your door, "Do you have any jews here?" "Damn, I was hoping you wouldn't ask that, because honestly I do, and honesty is always the best option, even when it means sending a half dozen innocent people to their deaths."
And then, there are the questions which aren't about what you would do, but about other people, so either you are machiavellian or naive? Isn't that nice.
I heard that the prince was actually intended as a satire of such a prince, haven't heard any corroborating evidence for that, though. Same with the corollary to "It is better to be feared than loved," I heard that he also said that it is critical to not be hated, but as I haven't read the book, I don't know for sure.
-
Yeah, I only posted the test as a mildly fun distraction not a completely legitimate test and why did you Godwin the test, there probably are better examples. How do you know that you wouldn't have been swept up in the propaganda?
-
Think about it, Germany 1942, police come knocking at your door, "Do you have any jews here?" "Damn, I was hoping you wouldn't ask that, because honestly I do, and honesty is always the best option, even when it means sending a half dozen innocent people to their deaths."
I thought one of the main tenets in Machiavellianism is to take a pragmatic level of self concern where you would never get in such a situation.
-
I think it's worth pointing out again that Machiavelli wrote his book as a practical treatise on how someone in power may maintain the status quo and consolidate his power, not as a general guide on philosophy. The primary theme, more than anything else, was making sure the interests of your subjects aligned with your own-- if they fear you, they won't defy you for their own sakes, and he prefers miliitias over mercenaries because militias want to defend their homes while mercenaries want to live to spend their pay. Machiavelli shouldn't be judged too harshly, the man very pointedly made an effort to seperate political thought and exercises from moral evangelism. For the purposes of the thought exercises he was interested in what works rather than what is right, and you can see in his Discourses on Livy that he was actually a something of a proponent for modern republicanism. He may have been a cynic, but it didn't stop him from thinking a republican system with checks and balances was superior to a principality. He has a lot more in common with the "nicer" political thinkers than most people give him credit for.
-
i got a 76 and i don't know enough about machiavelli to say whether i'm happy about said score.
i can be fairly cynical, but not manipulative.
-
Yeah, I only posted the test as a mildly fun distraction not a completely legitimate test and why did you Godwin the test, there probably are better examples.
If you are going to be like that you should really give a better example and not just say you believe one exists.
-
To clarify, my problem is actuallythe example not the Godwin-ing. A better example would be how Hitler and the Nazi party manipulated the German populace into doing and believing what they did.
-
Uh, no, it wouldn't. My example was to show how saying that you disagree with it always being the best policy to tell the truth doesn't mean you are a dishonest manipulative bastard, it means you hold something above honesty, such as the value of life.
And it isn't godwin, who was I comparing with the nazis or hitler?
I used that example because Nazi Germany is a setting everyone knows about, and is also an example of life and death hinging on telling the truth in that example. I suppose I could have used the Underground Railroad, but that example doesn't carry quite as much weight, as it is unlikely the penalty for all involved would be death.
-
I think it's worth pointing out again
Why? Nobody in this thread is ripping on Machiavelli, so why do you need to repeat your defense?
-
To clarify, my problem is actuallythe example not the Godwin-ing. A better example would be how Hitler and the Nazi party manipulated the German populace into doing and believing what they did.
Thats why there was 5 options, as appose to an agree/disagree system
-
59, which apparently still counts as low mach...
You really have to be careful how you parse the questions. I suspect if I was feeling Cynical today I would have scored higher but can you be Cynical without being Machiavellian?
-
I would say so, there is a difference between saying that you should do something and saying that it is easier to do something, or that many people do something.